Let’s not forget the reason he was banned for the first match of the season too…..

Shame for him personally, he had battled hard, but you’re right, a really soft poor dismissal.

6 overs until the new ball, build as much of a lead as possible before then, and then see it out.
Most important thing here is to not lose the same way as against Lancashire. Everyone would have taken a draw coming into this.

Considering it looks like Gloucestershire could lose to Northants; Somerset are definitely going to draw; plus Kent could be under pressure to save the game tomorrow, the points from a draw would go a long way. And Somerset have played a game less than us, and have Gloucestershire first game back in September.

I wish him the best, hopefully it’s minor but ideally won’t be able to bowl again this match.
Benjamin has really lead a charmed life so far, but I’m not complaining, we’ve earned a bit of luck after that incident with the bails.
Just get to lunch 2 down and then they can set about building a lead.

Got to say I was disappointed by the bowling.
The boundary count being so heavily towards Surrey showed how many bad balls we bowled on a pitch that was clearly offering plenty. And having them 8 down for basically the same score for them to get a 60 run lead could be crucial.
Only time will tell, but I think the bears got a decent score on that pitch and Surrey have been massively let off the hook.

This is bizarre. Turns out on a cricket pitch that is offering swing and seam, when you pitch it up and keep a tight line you get wickets and bowl dot balls.
But when you bang it in half way down, or bowl both sides of the stumps, you get smacked to the boundary.

Who knew?

Not a great start. Got 2 wickets but the bowlers are spraying it everywhere.
Looks like they’re almost trying to hard, trying to take a wicket every ball, rather than 4th stump line, build pressure, make the batsmen make an error.
Surrey were excellent in that regard. Happily kept the ball on a length outside off stump and built pressure.

I do feel as though apart from Rhodes and Benjamin, Surrey had to earn the wickets, Davies, Hain, Sibley and Burgess all got good balls. And when you look at the pitch, the bowling attack and remember that Surrey chose to bowl, I don’t think we’ve done too badly so far. It seems like there’s always something in it for the bowlers. And hopefully with a stronger attack this match, we can take advantage of that.

The scoring rate is an on going issue though. Just seems to push pressure further down the order. You think we were 4 down after 54 overs. But we’d only just made 100. 200-4 off 50 looks very different for a bowlers mentality, probably only have 1 slip instead of the 3 they’ve been able to keep in. Just seems self-defeating.

It’s always been my opinion that the Birmingham League was detrimental to the production of County quality products. It’s almost too competitive. The money involved now is too often about results first, rather than persevering with young prospects. So if a player isn’t already in the system, it’s hard to force their way in via league cricket. And the club has less reason to persevere with them.

Whereas for Surrey if you know players are getting competitive cricket in schools, you can prioritise resource to those not at larger schools, and offer opportunities via club sides. I’ve heard Surrey, Hampshire, Gloucestershire and Sussex have paid premier league clubs to take on certain players and give them the opportunity.
Surrey also help fund players, with potential, but come from limited economic means through clubs and age group tours and help with kit. Again theh can do this because they know 95% of the parents of kids in the system can afford it all by themselves.
So whilst Surrey have huge resources, and are lucky being in the wealthiest part of the country, they also direct those resources really well, and utilise them to their own ends, allowing for huge age groups squads and academy intakes.

The difference is the money. Not just the club, but the area.
They are the richest county by some way, and can afford to sign and keep players on staff who may never play a game. They don’t just sign their best youngsters, they sign anyone with the slightest talent. If they succeed at Surrey or elsewhere it looks good, if not financially it doesn’t effect them.

But it’s also the private schools. There’s a vast number of high quality cricket programmes in private schools in and around Surrey. Pope, Lawes and Burgess are all from Cranleigh. Sibley, Roy, Jamie Smith were Whitgift. The Currans were Wellington (paid for by Surrey). Burns, Jacks, Geddes, Jordan and Evans were all privately educated in Surrey schools too. So Surrey doesn’t just rely on the club game, and it’s own pathway, but it’s got this vast resource of rich schools who invest huge amounts into their cricket programmes to help them produce players.

He got a good ball, but it’s just irrelevant at this stage. Davies has got out so often to poor shots and average balls, that the excuse of a good ball doesn’t really apply for him anymore.
It’s not like Hain who we know is in good form and doesn’t throw his wicket away.

I do feel sorry for Benjamin. Who decided he was a number 3? Should be 5/6/7, just on a hiding to nothing.

I take full responsibility for that wicket. I apologise to everyone. I got ahead of myself. Also apologies for the almost certain impending collapse.

Got a feeling Surrey might have made a blunder here at the toss.
It looks green, and there was swing early on. But doesn’t seem like a particularly difficult deck (touch wood). Though maybe today will be the best bowling day and it’ll only get flatter.

If we can keep this partnership going; we might be able to do to Surrey what others have done to us this year. Post an above par score, keep them in the field and then have a strong bowling attack to put the pressure on.

This was what I was afraid of.
What message does that send? Yes Mousley wasn’t great last match. But you need to give the young kid a few games. But no straight out the side.
Time for Davies to reward the loyalty. Don’t think Rhodes is too far behind in that regard either.

I’m hoping for a real statement in selection today. But also fully aware it’s a futile hope.

Seems like the perfect opportunity to make a statement that performances matter more than the name on the back of shirt, the salary or the reputation.
If they dropped Davies they’d be showing that everyone is accountable, and no one is above the team. If he plays I hope he gets big runs, but I do wonder what his continued selection says to the likes of Yates, Lamb, Brookes, and also to those wondering if their place in the side is more in danger than it should be because Davies is untouchable. All of which makes it a harder environment to perform in and it spirals from there.

Any other ground apart from maybe Somerset, I’d agree about leaving out Briggs. But I’m not sure you can go to the oval and not play a spinner. Mousley’s part time stuff isn’t going to be enough.

I think they’ll drop Benjamin, move Hain to 3, have Burgess up at 6, with McAndrew at 7 and have an extra bowler. Though if it were me, from that squad, Davies would be the batsman to make way, with Rhodes opening again.

It’s just a shame it’s only taken 10 rounds for the management to work out the bowling isn’t up to it, when most of us realised after 4 or 5. It just doesn’t matter how well your batsmen do if you let the opposition score way too many.
The Glamorgan match is the perfect example. Can be as flat a track as there is, but a team with a big score or lead, confidence from the batting, with rested bowlers, against a batting unit who’ve been in the field for a long time, will always have a huge advantage.

I can’t see it myself. Notts have their own injury issues with bowlers. Can never keep Chappell, Ball or Pattinson fit.

From what I’ve heard, Stone was pretty realistic that unless he gets fit and stays fit, this could be his last big contract, so he’s just gone to the highest bidder. Previously that was Northants, Notts went higher. He wants to play test cricket, so Warwickshire’s white ball only deal was pretty pointless, plus less money.

Interesting point made about Farbrace’s recruitment.
Who was his best signing? Burgess, Bresnan, Briggs? Of those 3, only Burgess can be said to have been genuine success. He seems to have seamlessly replaced Ambrose, which many thought impossible. Briggs has been good but not when compared to Jeetan, and Bresnan was too short lived.
But Davies and Benjamin, are yet to deliver. And then you look at the domestic signings made by other teams and you wonder why the club didn’t attempt something similar.
In terms of overseas signed by Farbrace, I thought Chris Green was really good when he played in the T20. All the others have ranged from poor to abysmal.

I suspect I have the opposite view to most, and the batting will get the criticism. But actually if you look at where that game was lost, it was the bowling.
3 of the 4 innings were below 230. 2 of them below 200. It was clearly a pitch offering a bit to the bowlers. In the fourth innings, damp overcast conditions, they got the ball to do a bit, they used the conditions well. Whereas in the same situation in Kent second innings our bowlers let them escape from 100-4 to 380 declared. They knew this was a tough wicket. Only 2 of their batsmen got in. We can say Saini and Quinn didn’t look special, but compared to Miles, Brookes and Rhodes they looked like the Starc and Cummins.

It’s easy to blame the batsmen. But we’ve got 3 players averaging near enough 50 or more. Sibley has contributed at times too. But if other teams are scoring 100-200 runs more than they should then of course the batting will look bad in comparison. What’s even more damning is that not only is the bowling lacking any threat, it’s expensive for a lot of the time, it doesn’t build pressure. Shown by how sides score much faster than us, despite having players like Hain, Burgess, Lamb, Mousley, who all bat at a decent strike rate.

Yes Davies needs to go, and we need a first or second wicket partnership of 100 once or twice to just to build a base, and the batting needs to stop relying on Hain and Burgess. Could you imagine if Hain, Lamb and Burgess came in with 150-250 for 2 on the board instead of 100-5.

But if teams keep scoring more because the bowlers allow them too, then the batting will always be insufficient.

Not sure what the hell Kent think they’re doing.
Recognising they clearly have a weakness, and that their bowling isn’t good enough, so bringing in 2 international fast bowlers to improve their side and give them a much better chance to win.
Ludicrous decision making. Farbrace is probably laughing at them from his office.

I feel a bit sorry for Benjamin. He’s not a number 3, he’s inexperienced, he got a pretty ordinary decision by the looks of it, and he’s always out there in the first 5 overs.

Davies can just leave now, not our best keeper, not one of our best openers, fails time after time. On a huge wage, doesn’t seem to care, and is picked no matter what.